list-sessions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions delete/clear actions, which align with the destructiveHint: true annotation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as the effect of deletion, whether sessions are persistent, or any authentication requirements. With annotations already signaling destructiveness, the description adds minimal extra context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the tool's dual purpose (listing and managing) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the tool having multiple actions including destructive ones, the description does not explain when to use each action, what 'active' means, or what metadata is returned. An output schema exists but its contents are not visible; the description could still provide a brief summary of return structure. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes both parameters and the action enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool lists active conversation sessions with metadata, and can also manage them via delete/clear. This is specific and accurate. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that might also involve sessions, such as 'bg-kimi' or 'health'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., ask-kimi, batch-kimi). It also lacks context on when to use the list action versus delete or clear, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.